Surprisingly The Last Movie You Saw Didn't Suck Pt. 2

Saw Iron Man 3 today. I wasn't sure how they would continue the story and do it effectively, but it was worth every penny for me. Great job all around for the series. Just hoping they don't make any more movies and ruin the perfect ending.
 
The Amazing Spider-Man. The fan in me was irked that the movie didn't follow the origin "right," and didn't like Garfield's Parker at first, for being a punk. Peter in the comics, was a rather obedient boy, and he let the robber get away due to an inflated ego, which taught him a very important lesson. This Parker went on a vendetta and it took quite a while for him to understand the responsibilities his power gave him. All in all, I liked the movie, even if it was different. I guess that's why they make movies, as you can't just depend on the same classic material. You have to at least go different once in a while. If you didn't like the Amazing Spider-Man because of a different origin story, you might as well watch the first Raimi movie.

The Hobbit part 1 was a thrilling ride, and I guess it helped that I watched it on DVD as opposed to Blu-Ray on a giant screen. People complained that everything looked so fake, despite the fact when you watch a freaking fantasy or scifi movie in HD, of course everything's going to look fake. I just couldn't get into watching the Avengers on a TV as tall as I am.
I just loved that Gandalf smoked a lot of weed, while his friend was trippin' on mushrooms. I wonder what's Saruman's poision? Painkillers?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='ShockandAww']Just recently saw The Place Beyond The Pines. Very good imo but it was indeed almost like watching 2 different movies. Kind of odd. Also it was very predictable but I liked it anyway.[/QUOTE]

It was good but could have been great, some of it was wasted potential but still worth a watch.

Just watched savages, thought I'd like it being an Oliver Stone crime film but honestly I found it boring.
 
Finally got around to seeing Bolt and just like most animated films with the name Disney involved, I enjoyed it from the beginning to the end.
 
The Great Gatsby - Go to hell Jay-Z!!! And the first third isn't all that good either but mainly the soundtrack is ill fitting. Didn't feel like art as music is but it felt like a Mr. and Mrs. Carter show. Even that amazing Jack White cover doesn't really hit at all in the movie.

I did enjoy the main 4 actors though. I'm a DiCaprio fan so there might be some bias from me.
 
Star Trek: Into Darkness - 3.5/5 - A vast improvement over Star Trek, but it kinda fell flat at the end and ended up being more fan service than a true ending that it deserved. Some really great moments throughout the film, but a few overacted scenes. Pine, Cumberbatch and Quinto were fantastic in their roles, but most of the other cast were overlooked or reduced to a series of one-liners.
 
Yeah, my problem with the new Star Trek is that you really, really need to be a fan to appreciate all that JJ is trying to do. I feel like these movies play more of a tribute to their source rather than stand alone and take us on adventures. If I went into detail why, it would spoil the surprises but it also didn't help that there was no strong villain in this one either. Great movies have always been about conflict and resolution, but this one felt more like the resolution was already in place before the conflict started. It definitely felt flat but I'm sure it was due to all the fan service I wasn't understanding since I'm not at all a huge Star Trek fan.

As far as movies go, it's far from terrible because the action and pacing are all top notch. I just wish it would spark the imagination like the original films did.
 
Avatar - Meh, pretty much a letdown. Guess it was more of a 3d experience in movie theaters than anything else. Cliche story. Felt like this is what Final Fantasy Spirits Withing should have been.
 
[quote name='Jodou']Yeah, my problem with the new Star Trek is that you really, really need to be a fan to appreciate all that JJ is trying to do. I feel like these movies play more of a tribute to their source rather than stand alone and take us on adventures. If I went into detail why, it would spoil the surprises but it also didn't help that there was no strong villain in this one either. Great movies have always been about conflict and resolution, but this one felt more like the resolution was already in place before the conflict started. It definitely felt flat but I'm sure it was due to all the fan service I wasn't understanding since I'm not at all a huge Star Trek fan.

As far as movies go, it's far from terrible because the action and pacing are all top notch. I just wish it would spark the imagination like the original films did.[/QUOTE]

I think the exact opposite of everything you said is how it actually is. These movies seem to be more for people who don't really care about Star Trek than die hard fans. I know they do throw in some references that people who aren't huge Star Trek fans wouldn't get, but I don't think that takes anything away from their experience.

I do love how they released it on Thursday without really telling anyone though :lol:
 
Star Trek Into Darkness - I loved it. I'm not a Star Trek fan at all and thought it was great. I would agree with whoknows in saying these movies are more for people who aren't Trek fans since I'm sure true Trekkies tear these movies apart.
 
After having the disc from netflix sit around for two weeks, I finally watched Les Miserables. Not typically a fan of musicals, but I have to say, it was really pretty incredible. If only from an acting standpoint, it's definitely one of the better performances I've seen from many of the actors. And man, that first 30 minutes or so was brutal! I don't know that I'd want or be able to watch it again, but it's easily one of the better films I've seen from last year:)
 
A good day to die hard. It felt hollow if you know what I mean, definitely not a die hard movie to me. Only in name, not in spirit.
 
[quote name='whoknows']I think the exact opposite of everything you said is how it actually is. These movies seem to be more for people who don't really care about Star Trek than die hard fans. I know they do throw in some references that people who aren't huge Star Trek fans wouldn't get, but I don't think that takes anything away from their experience.

I do love how they released it on Thursday without really telling anyone though :lol:[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I talked to a friend who is a fan and he picked apart the same points I had so it sounds like this movie didn't really appease fans or interested moviegoers lol. I also came to the realization that my biggest problem with the movie versus the original films is that this one was waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too uptight and serious. There's no real time to breathe and reflect or take in some of the jokes because it's action-packed.

And it's good to know I wasn't just crazy about the Thursday release. I started looking at showtimes that day for Friday and was like, WTF it's already playing?
 
Cabin in the Woods - 4.5/5 - Fantastic film. Satirically deconstructs the horror genre while producing a competent, entertaining and hilarious film.
 
[quote name='GhostShark']Cabin in the Woods - 4.5/5 - Fantastic film. Satirically deconstructs the horror genre while producing a competent, entertaining and hilarious film.[/QUOTE]

I took my friend to watch this in the cinema's and he loved it while some of the younger people there seemed to dislike it. Anyway point being when we went to watch Evil Dead, which he's not seen the originals of, my friend turned to me and said "Cabin In The Woods has ruined this me". I thought that was funny.

Btw loved both of them.
 
Saw Star Trek and read some reviews from people on IMDB and Letterboxd and the hardcore fans definitely loathe this film. I can understand where they are coming from.

This movie is basically a remake of Star Trek 2. It pretty much breaks canon and you have to almost separate the old films with the new ones now, something I thought they were aiming to keep connected, especially with older Spock appearing in both movies.

I'm not a huge fan, so it's not crushing to me. But I can see why die-hards would be up in arms. I love Benedict Cumberbatch as an actor, but even as a casual Star Trek viewer, did they really need to go back to Kahn?

With what I originally read about the old TV series, if I'm not mistaken, the episode featuring John Harrison would have been a story they could have adapted, and escaped most fan-boy ire and had something still fresh and original.

I think some people are ripping apart the movie a bit too much. Complaining Alice Eve is shown in her underwear for no reason? Really? That they changed what is the warp-speed special effect? That's just looking for reasons to slam it.

It's a good movie with good portrayals (again) of the characters. I think that's really where these new reboots shine. But if you are a purist, proceed with caution. It's just a bit of a letdown that they easily could have had all viewers satisfied with some tweaks.
 
[quote name='DestroVega']Saw Star Trek and read some reviews some people on IMDB and Letterboxd and the hardcore fans definitely loathe this film. I can understand where they are coming from.

This movie is basically a remake of Star Trek 2. It pretty much breaks canon and you have to almost separate the old films with the new ones, something I thought they were aiming to keep connected, especially with older Spock appearing in both movies.

I'm not a huge fan, so it's not crushing to me. But I can see why die-hardship would be up in arms. I love Benedict Cumberbatch as an actor, but even as a casual Star Trek viewer, did they really need to go back to Kahn?

With what I originally read sbout the old TV series, If I'm not mistaken, the episode featuring John Harrison would have been a story they could have adapted, and escaped most fan-boy ire and had something still fresh and original.

I think some people are apart the movie a bit too much. Complaining Alice Eve is shown in her underwear for no reason? Really? That they changed what is the warp-speed special effect? That's just looking for reasons to slam it.

It's a good movie with good portrayals (again) of the characters. I think that's really where these new reboots shine. But if you are a purist, proceed with caution. But they easily could have had all viewers satisfied with some tweaks.[/QUOTE]

I thought the movie was really entertaining. Benedict Cumberbatch was excellent as was the rest of the cast. My only complaint was that they should have reigned in the action a bit. Everyone seemed to be running...to nowhere.
 
Don't forget jumping!

Two shots I thought were really breathtaking to watch.

The Enterprise just as it falls through the clouds, and the hallways of the ship constantly rotating during the fall. Excellent stuff.
 
About Star Trek, I haven't seen the new one but the whole point of the first one was to show that it's different from the original as I believe even old Spock say's along the lines 'Think of this as a parallel universe' about the movieverse. There's really no need for fanboys to cry over it as they were establishing it's own canon separate from the originals.
 
[quote name='DestroVega']Saw Star Trek and read some reviews from people on IMDB and Letterboxd and the hardcore fans definitely loathe this film. I can understand where they are coming from.

This movie is basically a remake of Star Trek 2. It pretty much breaks canon and you have to almost separate the old films with the new ones now, something I thought they were aiming to keep connected, especially with older Spock appearing in both movies.

I'm not a huge fan, so it's not crushing to me. But I can see why die-hards would be up in arms. I love Benedict Cumberbatch as an actor, but even as a casual Star Trek viewer, did they really need to go back to Kahn?

With what I originally read about the old TV series, if I'm not mistaken, the episode featuring John Harrison would have been a story they could have adapted, and escaped most fan-boy ire and had something still fresh and original.

I think some people are ripping apart the movie a bit too much. Complaining Alice Eve is shown in her underwear for no reason? Really? That they changed what is the warp-speed special effect? That's just looking for reasons to slam it.

It's a good movie with good portrayals (again) of the characters. I think that's really where these new reboots shine. But if you are a purist, proceed with caution. It's just a bit of a letdown that they easily could have had all viewers satisfied with some tweaks.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't break canon in any way.
 
[quote name='ClydeShebang']About Star Trek, I haven't seen the new one but the whole point of the first one was to show that it's different from the original as I believe even old Spock say's along the lines 'Think of this as a parallel universe' about the movieverse. There's really no need for fanboys to cry over it as they were establishing it's own canon separate from the originals.[/QUOTE]

I didn't take it that way, but if that's what they are aiming to do, then definitely there's no reason to complain.
 
Safety Not Guaranteed. Pretty decent.

Teeth. Terrible.

This is 40. Pretty good, not as funny as Knocked Up as it's more serious, but still a good flick IMO.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']This is 40. Pretty good, not as funny as Knocked Up as it's more serious, but still a good flick IMO.[/QUOTE]

Did you watch the unrated extended cut? I did and it was almost unwatchable.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Did you watch the unrated extended cut? I did and it was almost unwatchable.[/QUOTE]

Yep. I think so anyway. Had unrated on the box art logo on Amazon streaming when we rented it.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Did you watch the unrated extended cut? I did and it was almost unwatchable.[/QUOTE]

They extended a movie that was already too long??
 
I liked Star Trek except for the overall lack of
plot. What plot? It needed focus where it didn't have any.
I think there's a better film in there somewhat.
 
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.

I liked it a lot better the second viewing. The high frame rate showing in the theater took me out of it as everything seemed like it was in 1.5x fast forward and made things look fake to me. Watching in 2D solved that and I think it's right up there with the LOTR movies.

Would like to see it in regular 3D, wish Netflix or Redbox would start offering 3D Blus for rental. Holding off for the extended release this fall before buying it. Hopefully they'll offer that in 3D too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
05.12.13: Jurassic Park: 9.0/8.9
05.13.13: Jurassic Park: The Lost World: 8.7/8.5
05.14.13: Warm Bodies: 8.2/9.5
05.15.13: A Good Day To Die Hard: 6.4/7.0
05.16.13: Les Miserables: 8.1/9.5
05.17.13: The Rocky Horror Picture Show: 9.1/9.1
05.18.13: Sound City: 8.4/9.2
05.19.13: Apocalypse Now: 9.8/9.3
05.20.13: The Red Shoes: 8.9/8.8
 
I was so incredibly angry when I walked out of the theater after watching Iron Man 3. I mean seriously, what did I watch? There were so few scenes of Stark being Iron Man, and when he was in the suit it was malfunctioning the entire time. Not to mention the fact that his new armor delivery system seemed invented specifically to have something to throw at the screen in 3D. Rhodey seemed to be a bumbling buffoon up until the very end, and RDJ's acting was terrible every time he had a "panic attack". My mom suffered from panic attacks most of her life. They don't look like that, nor should they be played up for comedy.

And what Shane Black did with The Mandarin should have been vetoed by Marvel Studios from the beginning. Are you kidding me? His one memorable, iconic villain from the comics... and they do that with him? Especially considering Marvel's plans for Doctor Strange in phase III. You're telling me that they thought Mandarin's rings were too far-fetched and would look too much like magic... but they're going to introduce the freakin' Sorcerer Supreme into the movies later anyway? Yeah. Okay.

And let's talk about the advertising. Every single ad I saw made it seem like the most dramatic entry in the franchise... and yet every serious event that happened had a punchline delivered immediately afterward. Boo.

Every bad thing that happened was a result of Tony making a guy stand out on a roof for a while. Seriously?

Marvel should have done whatever they could to keep Favreu on board. At least he seemed willing to delve into such goofy things as (according to post-IM2 interviews) Fin Fang Foom. And you know what? The guy probably would have made it work, too.
 
[quote name='DestroVega']They extended a movie that was already too long??[/QUOTE]

Yup. Thing was over 2 hours and I felt every single minute of it.
 
[quote name='ClydeShebang']Planning on watching Side Effects, anyone seen it and is it worth watching?[/QUOTE]

I watched it the other day, I thought it was really good, totally different from the trailer.
 
[quote name='poison_SHADOW']I was so incredibly angry when I walked out of the theater after watching Iron Man 3. I mean seriously, what did I watch? There were so few scenes of Stark being Iron Man, and when he was in the suit it was malfunctioning the entire time. Not to mention the fact that his new armor delivery system seemed invented specifically to have something to throw at the screen in 3D. Rhodey seemed to be a bumbling buffoon up until the very end, and RDJ's acting was terrible every time he had a "panic attack". My mom suffered from panic attacks most of her life. They don't look like that, nor should they be played up for comedy.

And what Shane Black did with The Mandarin should have been vetoed by Marvel Studios from the beginning. Are you kidding me? His one memorable, iconic villain from the comics... and they do that with him? Especially considering Marvel's plans for Doctor Strange in phase III. You're telling me that they thought Mandarin's rings were too far-fetched and would look too much like magic... but they're going to introduce the freakin' Sorcerer Supreme into the movies later anyway? Yeah. Okay.

And let's talk about the advertising. Every single ad I saw made it seem like the most dramatic entry in the franchise... and yet every serious event that happened had a punchline delivered immediately afterward. Boo.

Every bad thing that happened was a result of Tony making a guy stand out on a roof for a while. Seriously?

Marvel should have done whatever they could to keep Favreu on board. At least he seemed willing to delve into such goofy things as (according to post-IM2 interviews) Fin Fang Foom. And you know what? The guy probably would have made it work, too.[/QUOTE]
The Mandarin was the first thing in a marvel movie that actually caught me by surprise. I also think it was the funniest marvel movie too.
 
I can see people being mad at the Mandarin thing. I thought the script was great writing wise.

If you're gonna pick apart this movie, the fact that the villains seemed indestructible but weren't at other times was the dumbest thing to me.

I had no problem at all with panic attacks and lack of armor.
 
[quote name='DestroVega']I can see people being mad at the Mandarin thing. I thought the script was great writing wise.

If you're gonna pick apart this movie, the fact that the villains seemed indestructible but weren't at other times was the dumbest thing to me.

I had no problem at all with panic attacks and lack of armor.[/QUOTE]

That was my only real problem with filming, looking closely at the narrative and plot critically.
So Killian (or the Mandarin, since when you boil it down, he was the Mandarin) can be annihilated when Stark blows the Mach 42 and come back perfectly, but everyone else dies rather easily. A tad bit more exposition on the Extremes could have solved that.

The poster above said he didn't like the film because Stark didn't spend enough time being Iron Man. I think he missed the point of the film (and the core charismatic critique of the character of Tony Stark) is that that He can't be Iron Man because he is Iron Man. Peter Parker can go out and be Spider-Man. Kal-El can go out and be Clark Kent. Bruce Wayne can go out and be Batman. Tony Stark can't do that because Tony Stark is Iron Man. They aren't different sides of the same coin. They're essentially the same being.

And I will stop there before I turn this into a graduate level literary discourse essay on the film and Iron Man as a whole, haha.
 
Without the suit Tony Stark is just some smartass with money. The suit makes him Iron Man. Without it he isn't Iron or a man at all, unless he likes ironing and wants to be that kind of iron man. Don Cheadle is more Iron Man than Robert Downey Jr is in IM3.

Point is, that movie was terrible, Iron Man (aka the real Iron Man which is the suit) wasn't in the movie a lot and let's all pretend it didn't happen since IM2 was somehow better.
 
[quote name='whoknows']Without it he isn't Iron or a man at all, unless he likes ironing and wants to be that kind of iron man.[/QUOTE]

lol

Iron Man 4: Revenge of the Wrinkles
 
whoknows probably has the worst opinions on CAG....that or he just loves trolling threads.


Anyway, just got back from seeing Iron Man 3 in 3D. Thought it was great. I love the series because it's a bit more plot driven and character focused than most super hero/comic movies outside of Nolan's Batman trilogy, and that's a lot more up my alley than most others that are mostly mindless popcorn action flicks. AKA enjoyable but entirely forgettable with little replay value.

So I didn't mind the lack of suit, panic attacks etc. as I like the series more for the Tony Stark character than the action. And besides that I thought there was still plenty off good action scenes.

It also had by far the best villain of the series so far. Guy Pearce nailed that role, and it was nice to have a villain that wasn't just a pissed off guy in another suit.

I'd still put Iron Man 1 as the best of the series by a small bit over this one. I definitely liked this better than the second one though--and I like the second one more than most apparently.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']whoknows probably has the worst opinions on CAG....that or he just loves trolling threads.[/QUOTE]
It seems like his movie opnions are pretty sincere.
 
[quote name='whoknows']Without the suit Tony Stark is just some smartass with money. The suit makes him Iron Man. Without it he isn't Iron or a man at all, unless he likes ironing and wants to be that kind of iron man. Don Cheadle is more Iron Man than Robert Downey Jr is in IM3.

Point is, that movie was terrible, Iron Man (aka the real Iron Man which is the suit) wasn't in the movie a lot and let's all pretend it didn't happen since IM2 was somehow better.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. He couldn't even function when he was out of the suit, and still needed a bunch of fresh-made gadgets to get him through his one-man assault on the compound.

How about we strip Captain America of his super soldier serum next? Sure, Steve Rogers was always a hero deep down and only ever wanted to help people and stop evil. Take away his serum, however, and what would he be? Someone incapable of doing anything because the serum gave him those abilities. He'd be a step below Kick-Ass, even.
 
Tony Stark's "power" is his intellect and ability to invent things. Hence how he was able to rig up some gadgets and assault the compound.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top